Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The boiling frog of digital freedom

gazoche.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 467 posts

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#451

Post by xp84 »

vinceguidry wrote: post #449
LesZedCB wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been happily living on android for maybe 5 years now after iOS for maybe 10 before that. I don't really miss it at all, but the tier system is hard to ignore. besides the infamous "green text" phenomenon, iOS tends to get the apps for applications that only support one, or in my car, android auto only takes up the top half of the screen whereas car play uses the full display. and of course, the software ecosyste…

Alienation I can see, but austerity? One of the things I plan on doing is building custom UIs for all the apps I usually use. Termux on stock Android is hobbled by unremappable key bindings that make using the Super key almost impossible, but when I can finally actually control the computer I carry around in my pocket all day, a blank canvas I can mold and shape is infinitely better. I bet your Subaru is probably hac…

> your Subaru is probably hackable, all these things run Linux under the hood,

Years ago I would have said “much more likely to be QNX since a car always has a RTOS.” These days it’s likely Android Automotive, which has a massive share now. Note: despite the name it has nothing to do with “Android Auto.”

Overall, hacking on a car, even infotainment, seems very difficult. They really don’t want you to have any control over it.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#452

Post by MichaelZuo »

b112 wrote: post #438
MichaelZuo wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you want to avoid getting into the weeds, since it appears you have a peculiar idea of validity that does not reflect the legal or logical usage, then by all means. Anyways I agree this is a tangent from the main comment chain, if that's what your implying. I included the last paragraph for that reason: > And in any case there are many real world products which so far have not been reverse engineered to a suf…

You don't get how trade secrets work. What makes them enforceable, actionable. The classic example was during the 90s. A company was building a new factory, and as a result, it was open to the air. A competitor, wanting to legally discover how the manufacturing process of the company was orchestrated, flew over the construction site, taking photos, pictures. The competitor claimed, that they obtained such information…

You appear to be assuming that the 'schematics', even if they were provided by the manufacturer, describe the actual product in your hands, which is probably the source of confusion.

They don't, at least not for modern products of some intricacy.

Going back to the example of Apple's glass trackpad, there's a decent chance that literally every Macbook ever sold with it has a unique trackpad, because some transistor(s) were slightly off, due to manufacturing tolerances, requiring slightly different resistor(s) to compensate, etc..., and so on.

And there are hundreds of components just in the trackpad.

So even in the literal sense of examining it under various microscopes and so on, I think it's pretty fair to say that it's secret enough for it to be very very difficult to recreate.

But this all seems like arguing at windmills, because in practice, Apple's shareholders, board, management, employees, suppliers, customers, and competitors behave as if it was a trade secret. Which is more then sufficient for all practical purposes most HN readers are concerned with.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#453

Post by jodrellblank »

MostlyStable wrote: post #342
jodrellblank wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " It's not "too complex" " A valve radio had ~50 discrete components[1]. The first semiconductors had triple that number of components in a square millimeter in 1971[2], a modern CPU is in the tens or hundreds of millions of transistors per square millimetre. That's more components than the Encyclopedia Britannica had words in 29 volumes[3]. How are you going to 'know what you're buying' if you don't know anything…

All this means is that you move one level up on what it is you are diagramming and replacing. I don't expect to replace the integrated circuit on my instant pot, but I do expect to be able to replace the control board or the thermal fuse. And instructions on how to do these things would be great! A simple diagram showing how the larger things are connected is all that's necessary. I don't need a map of all the traces…

Not to say it wouldn't be useful to someone, somewhere, or save you 10 minutes, but I suspect if you are capable of replacing the control board and thermal fuse, willing and motivated to do so, have the equipment and workspace to do it, willing to spend almost as much on a replacement control board as you would on a new Instant Pot, and don't need a map of all traces or list of components, you can likely find the fuse yourself without much bother.

But that's still a different argument to the one I was responding to which was "People have a right to know what they're buying" - and the claim that products are "not too complex" for that. At the point we turn it to a diagram which says "fuse connects to System-on-Chip blob ground pin 0 and data pin 7. Button board connects to blob ground pin 0 data pin 8" are we any closer to "knowing what we're buying" in a meaningful way?

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#454

Post by LegitShady »

Frost1x wrote: post #221
LegitShady wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then companies will make everything a service. You need to make a downside for dearing that.

In theory, markets should regulate and competitors should be able to rise and provide products over never ending services and be successful. That doesn't seem to happen though. Is it because service designs expose real business costs of continued investment in R&D sort of deal, is it because such reliable products are bad for business (you provide something so good, reliable, and cheap you kill your own revenue strea…

In my experience markets dont regulate anything. Governments do.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#455

Post by walteweiss »

Daril wrote: post #437
walteweiss wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone elaborate on Free Office? I checked, it was first submitted to AUR in 2013, but it’s the very first time I hear the brand. I use Libre Office and I tried OnlyOffice as well. Of course I know Open Office, which Libree Office was, once upon a time. But I never seen in any shape of form Free Office. I couldn’t find even Wikipedia article about them. Their website looks dull to me. What is it all about? Me, I’…

FreeOffice exists since many years. It is free for personal use. It is a light and complete office suite. It is a good alternative to LibreOffice, also if not so rich in features.

Just tried to install it from AUR, and it didn’t run on my Arch Linux system.

`$ freeoffice-textmaker`

Critical System Error: Unable to open X Window display.

I assume it doesn’t support Wayland. And I don’t support X, I don’t use it and if an app doesn’t work on Wayland, I won’t use it. May be useful for someone else, who doesn’t tolerate Wayland being unsupported.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#456

Post by Wowfunhappy »

latexr wrote: post #443
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to imply the author should have written for a general audience. There are plenty of techies who think this isn't a legitimate problem. I mean, if you're only writing for people who already agree with you, why bother at all?

> I mean, if you're only writing for people who already agree with you, why bother at all? To give those people, who may not be articulate or knowledgeable enough to explain the intricacies of a problem, the capacity to argue for or against a point when engaged in conversation. For example, there are people who are against behavioural advertising but they may not be able to cite specific examples of how it’s harmful,…

Okay, but it could do that more effectively if they picked better events for their timeline.

I feel like the article, as it stands, basically only works on the basis of "the boiling frog of digital freedom" as a concept that people already feel is happening. Unfortunately, the actual details are poorly chosen—which don't matter if you're already bought into the concept, but are imperative otherwise.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#457

Post by cachvico »

lapcat wrote: post #256
cachvico wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather, it was justified in terms of protecting the cell phone carriers I don't remember that at all. I do remember Jobs resisting the app store because he wanted everything to be a web app though (despite resisting the move to responsive web design). Can you provide a source for your claim?

> Can you provide a source for your claim? "Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up" is literally a quote from Steve Jobs. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/01/steve-jobs-knows-bes... https://www.engadget.com/2007-01-11-jobs-confirms-iphone-is-... https://www.zdnet.com/article/steve-jobs-the-iphone-and-open... https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.c…

Interesting - thanks! Seems odd to imagine a userspace app could take down a carrier network.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#458

Post by latexr »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #456
latexr wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, if you're only writing for people who already agree with you, why bother at all? To give those people, who may not be articulate or knowledgeable enough to explain the intricacies of a problem, the capacity to argue for or against a point when engaged in conversation. For example, there are people who are against behavioural advertising but they may not be able to cite specific examples of how it’s harmful,…

Okay, but it could do that more effectively if they picked better events for their timeline. I feel like the article, as it stands, basically only works on the basis of "the boiling frog of digital freedom" as a concept that people already feel is happening. Unfortunately, the actual details are poorly chosen—which don't matter if you're already bought into the concept, but are imperative otherwise.

My answer was more about the general reason to do it. I agree in the specific instance of this article, which is why I gave a different example. I meant to point that out in the original post.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#459

Post by account42 »

Daril wrote: post #328

There is hope: - 20 years ago it was impossible to buy a PC, especially a laptop, without MS Windows : today there are several suppliers: System76, LaptopWithLinux, TuxedoComputers, to name but a few. - It is only in the last few years (less than 10) that Linux is perfectly usable on the desktop, so I don't care what decision MS will take for Windows, it is irrelevant if you have other options. For office suites we h…

> 20 years ago it was impossible to buy a PC, especially a laptop, without MS Windows : today there are several suppliers: System76, LaptopWithLinux, TuxedoComputers, to name but a few.

Buying components and assembling them yourself has always been an option for desktops (and IMO the best one). For laptops, I bought a Dell with Linux ~15 years ago - not quite 20 but close enough.

> It is only in the last few years (less than 10) that Linux is perfectly usable on the desktop, so I don't care what decision MS will take for Windows, it is irrelevant if you have other options. For office suites we have: LibreOffice, OnlyOffice, FreeOffice

Linux has been a perfectly usable desktop OS for a long time. I know because I have been using it for well over 10 years and have not missed the sorry excuse for a OS that is Windows.

If anything, there are certain actors trying to lock down Linux to build their own walled garden. Of course being open source makes this harder but they do try and with hardware-backed crypto requirements may eventually succeed - source won't help you if whatever you build with it won't match the whitelisted checksums.

> There are many messaging apps and protocols that are decentralised and resistant to censorship.

Which is an improvement on a single Gaim/Pidgin being able to connect to all networks you can think of? We hardly need more messaging protocols and apps.

Re: The boiling frog of digital freedom

#460

Post by flangola7 »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #349
flangola7 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bootloader locking and remote attestation don't stop you recycling devices or even repurposing them. Not even close to true. https://www.vice.com/en/article/43jywd/why-tens-of-thousands...

Anti-theft features aren't anything to do with remote attestation, and this feature does not stop recycling the devices, it just means that only Apple can recycle them. Which would likely be true anyway due to how integrated the components are.

> Anti-theft features aren't anything to do with remote attestation, and this feature does not stop recycling the devices Activation Lock relies on a remote attestation mechanism. It will not unlock without a connection to Apple's servers and can't be bypassed on the device.

>it just means that only Apple can recycle them. Which would be a problem

>Which would likely be true anyway due to how integrated the components are. You don't need Apple to melt down gold

Post reply on HN